|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 09, 2016 11:21 PM |
|
|
|
Your expectations are met. That's a positive.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 09, 2016 11:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Being tempted or aroused does not justify rape or victim blaming.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? It does not justify it but it happens nonetheless. So instead of ignoring the fact that it does happen like some tumour of society that will be surgically removed in the should-be world, isn't it better to accept that it simply does happen in here-and-now real world and instead of preaching how right women are to do whatever they want no matter the circumstances, like some spoiled teenagers who have mammy and daddy social justice to babysit them ad infinitum, to actually apply some common sense where necessary and prevent bad things from happening? We are still very far from the perfect should-be world after all.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 12:35 AM |
|
|
Zenofex, you are disregarding every reply about what is problematic with that type of so-called "realism" with this answer. There will always be criminals and people with anti-social behavior who will commit such acts, yes. But there is a very significant difference about how that "common sense" is understood as in a scale of say, Saudi Arabia - Turkey - Russia - Sweden. Where as in the first one, even a smile could be labeled as inappropriately suggestive, in the last one, a wife can easily sue his husband for rape and no one would put shame on her. The habit of victim blaming directly affects the norms (which are open to gradual change) and therefore is actively a factor in shaping the reality you talk of.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 04:26 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:54, 10 Jun 2016.
|
JollyJoker said:
It's - as artu says - a POWER thing.
This is a popular feminist catechism that, at best, is a matter of scientific disagreement. From my admittedly surface level research, this generalized conclusion seems to go against the current thinking of evolutionary psychology. And in my opinion, at least in a general sense, it seems to also be at odds with common sense. Like many things, summing up all the potential diverse causes of a complicated crime like rape, which occurs under all manner of circumstances, with a trite “it’s about power, not sex” seems unrealistically neat and tidy. Which isn’t to say it can’t be about power in some circumstances, but to my mind it also often isn’t.
Since I read it recently, let me reproduce here an excerpt from Steven Pinker’s Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined on the subject that might be relevant- it also touches on the issue of "blaming the victim".
As we have seen, successful campaigns against violence often leave in their wake unexamined codes of etiquette, ideology, and taboo. In the case of rape, the [unexamined socially accepted] belief is that rape has nothing to do with sex and only to do with power. As [feminist author Susan] Brownmiller put it, “From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” Rapists, she wrote, are like Myrmidons, the mythical swarm of soldiers descended from ants who fought as mercenaries for Achilles: “Police-blotter rapists in a very real sense perform a myrmidon function for all men in our society.” The myrmidon theory, of course, is preposterous. Not only does it elevate rapists to altruistic troopers for a higher cause, and slander all men as beneficiaries of the rape of women they love, but it assumes that sex is the one thing that no man will ever use violence to attain, and is contradicted by the numerous facts about the statistical distribution of rapists and their victims. Brownmiller wrote that she adapted the theory from the ideas of an old communist professor of hers, and it does fit the Marxist conception that all human behavior is to be explained as a struggle for power between groups. But if I may be permitted an ad feminam suggestion, the theory that rape has nothing to do with sex may be more plausible to a gender to whom a desire for impersonal sex with an unwilling stranger is too bizarre to contemplate.
Common sense never gets in the way of a sacred custom that has accompanied a decline of violence, and today rape centers unanimously insist that “rape or sexual assault is not an act of sex or lust—it’s about aggression, power, and humiliation, using sex as a weapon. The rapist’s goal is domination.” (To which the journalist Heather MacDonald replies: “The guys who push themselves on women at keggers are after one thing only, and it’s not a reinstatement of the patriarchy.”) Because of the sacred belief, rape counselors foist advice on students that no responsible parent would ever give a daughter. When MacDonald asked the associate director of an Office of Sexual Assault Prevention at a major university whether they encouraged students to exercise good judgment with guidelines like “Don't get drunk, don’t get into bed with a guy, and don’t take off your clothes or allow them to be removed,” she replied, “I am uncomfortable with the idea. This indicates that if [female students] are raped it could be their fault—it is never their fault—and how one dresses does not invite rape or violence… I would never allow my staff or myself to send the message it is the victim’s fault due to their dress or lack of restraint in any way.”
Fortunately, the students whom MacDonald interviewed did not let this sexual correctness get in the way of their own common sense. The party line of the campus rape bureaucracy, however interesting it may be as a topic in the sociology of belief, is a sideshow to a more significant historical development: that in recent decades, a widening of social attitudes and law enforcement to embrace the perspective of women has driven down the incidence of a major category of violence.
It’s worth noting that sexual assaults by just about every metric and over any timespan are indeed in continual decline (sample data), which belies the idea of an emergent rape culture that is contributing to an escalating degree of assaults against women.
Also, in the interest in staying on topic, here’s another interesting article that’s relevant to the idea of rape being about power or sex.
EDIT: Here are rape and sexual assault statistics over a longer time span from more or less the same source.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 05:01 AM |
|
|
An excellent excerpt if I might add, providing further confirmation of what in reality represents common sense but also exposing the mantra of sexual correctness. I couldn't agree more with it.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 05:26 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:50, 10 Jun 2016.
|
Corribus said:
This is a popular feminist catechism that, at best, is a matter of scientific disagreement. From my admittedly surface level research, this generalized conclusion seems to go against the current thinking of evolutionary psychology. And in my opinion, at least in a general sense, it seems to also be at odds with common sense. Like many things, summing up all the potential diverse causes of a complicated crime like rape, which occurs under all manner of circumstances, with a trite “it’s about power, not sex” seems unrealistically neat and tidy. Which isn’t to say it can’t be about power in some circumstances, but to my mind it also often isn’t.
Well, it is one thing to say rape can have various (and sometimes overlapping) reasons, especially when you keep mind that male sexuality and dominance are not exactly isolated topics either. But, if it were me, I'd say, "it isn't to say it can't be about sex in some circumstances, but to my mind it also often isn't."
I was not aware this was labeled as a "feminist view" over there. In Turkey, since the rise of AKP and Islamic tendencies, both rape and other violent acts against women have almost doubled, so it's a constant matter of debate here and people do non-stop research about it. Even one of my own professors from the university has an article about the relationship between rape and power and last I checked he was no feminist. Anyway, I think even a phenomenon such as significant and sudden increase in rape statistics by shift in political power tells us that something other than sexual hunger plays a significant part on rape, in general. Unless men somehow started to get aroused much easier lately. And my common sense tells me that if it was just about sexual desire, in modern times, we'd have much less rape crimes because it is very easy for anybody to end that thirst by other means without risking any jail time. And how about domestic cases which are a very large portion of rape cases, do men get uncontrollably aroused by their wives after, say, 20 years of marriage? And to repeat myself, think of beaches or even better, nude camps... Shouldn't they have constantly produced rape incidents if men seeing some flesh and then losing their control was the actual explanation of rape? Another good example would be gang rapes, do a dozen men suddenly want to have sex simultaneously? In the wiki link I gave that lists the causes of sexual violence, there is the mention of a study that puts sexual desire as the prior cause but I am under the impression it is that study which is the marginal one, not the other way around.
And btw, on the Heather MacDonald reply of “The guys who push themselves on women at keggers are after one thing only, and it’s not a reinstatement of the patriarchy." This is simply caricaturazing the argument. Of course, rape is not a political manifesto or a conscious, social demand for patriarchy etc. But rather then feeding sexual desire, it feeds the need of "feeling in charge." You may not even know the dictionary meaning of the word patriarchy but you can still need to feel in charge.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 07:23 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Zenofex, you are disregarding every reply about what is problematic with that type of so-called "realism" with this answer. There will always be criminals and people with anti-social behavior who will commit such acts, yes. But there is a very significant difference about how that "common sense" is understood as in a scale of say, Saudi Arabia - Turkey - Russia - Sweden. Where as in the first one, even a smile could be labeled as inappropriately suggestive, in the last one, a wife can easily sue his husband for rape and no one would put shame on her. The habit of victim blaming directly affects the norms (which are open to gradual change) and therefore is actively a factor in shaping the reality you talk of.
I got the impression that we are not talking about Saudi Arabia and its likes, they are so far behind in social terms comparing to what is normally perceived as modern societies that putting them in such context is nearly ridiculous. Of course that in countries where women are treated as lower tier humans and de facto servants of men rape has a very different meaning, socially and morally but that's well outside of the border of this discussion (at least for me) - except if you think that it makes sense to mix the medieval ethics of these countries and topics like gender equality which are less than 1 century old.
The problem I have with the excessive usage of the "rights" stuff to justify something is that it can reach the point where it transforms into an excuse for stupidity and recklessness. There's one huge (and ancient) problem with laws which guarantee these rights even in the most advanced countries - that they are ultimately reactive. Something bad should happen before the law can start applying justice. If you go too far with the "that's wrong, it should not happen, I'm in the right" thinking, to the point of provoking that bad thing to happen because justice is on your side, you are simply inviting trouble. And that's not victim blaming. If I deliberately go teasing some bully who's twice my size because he's a jerk and deserved to be told that an end up with a few teeth less and a broken nose it would be he who had formally committed an offense but I wouldn't really be able to say that I have chosen the best approach, no? The norms of acceptable behaviour, be them official or not, are not a substitute for personal responsibility.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 07:44 AM |
|
|
You have selected out one example from a scale, which was representing rock bottom. Yes, the norms of the rock bottom may seem too far to you to be of any relevance but when you come to think of it, all of this is very brief and fresh by historical measures and even the most advanced countries were not extremely different from that rock bottom 5 or 6 generations ago. And the reason you think of them as "too archaic to be relevant" are not the people who said "well, you play with fire you get burned" but people who actually struggled for better norms. Punching a bigger men is not such a norm, you'll have pretty much the same result in any age and culture. The point of the scale was to remind you how some social norms we accept as solid facts of life can gradually change. Of course, I'm not talking about acting reckless and becoming some kind of civil rights martyr, but when people act reckless, I wont be focusing on their recklessness instead of the actual crime itself.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 08:50 AM |
|
|
I'm not cherry-picking some backwater countries just to make my point sound better, they just don't belong in such a discussion. The list of issues which they need to fix before they come to the point where women rights become something more than decadent teachings of foreign degenerates in the heads of their population is way too big and with too many intersecting sub-issues to make a special case of exactly that. In fact any of these many issues when treated as a special subject will just hit a wall with such people if their general mindset is lagging hundreds of years behind - hence why I don't think it's worth discussing in the current context.
As for the bully comparison, it's quite the same - in both cases you have someone physically stronger who's able to forcefully overcome somebody physically weaker just because something as primal and unsophisticated as raw strength is on his side. And in both cases the law is on the victim's side but only after something bad has already happened, it can't prevent it from happening in any way apart from instilling fear from the consequences - which just doesn't work with some people. If you don't want it to happen, you don't blindly act as if the society, the universe, God or whatever will shield you from injustice and won't allow your righteous persona to suffer any abuse but you use your brain and try to restrain your own behaviour where it can put you in danger.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 09:02 AM |
|
|
Guys (!), you misunderstand the meaning of the "power versus sex" thing. First of all - look at the language. I don't know your own, but we communicate in English. The f-word is used in a lot of ways, most of which actually have nothing to do with sex, but with domination, doing something really nasty with someone else. That is quite telling as such.
Scientists who suddenly take offense on the "mantra" that rape isn't about sex, but about power" should be fined due to being banal; the miss the most elementary thing about rape and that's the violating. It's simply a question of perspective. When a man rapes a woman, he isn't quenching a thirst; instead he is violating another person, forcing him or her to be his object of primal satisfaction. Before it can even become sex, the domination must take place, the will-bending, allowing the penetration. It has to do with breaking someone, so that she will endure what follows.
Then there is society. I think, it doesn't need discussion to see where we are coming from: from a society where man and woman were definitely not equal, where men held power over women like parents hold it over children - now consider how "natural" physical violence against children was (and still is). When it comes to violence against children, the humiliation involved is always a factor; in the end, if a grown-up is becoming violent against a child, it's in order to [f-word] the little nuisance, to make them obey. With women, things come essentially out of the same corner. "Conjugal duties" reduces sex to a mere service that can be (rightly) demanded, and if denied, claimed by force.
Now compare rape and burglary. In the US, I think, a person has a right to kill an intruder, that is, someone invading your home. So what about an intruder invading your body? Same right, no? Basically, if you are not shedding a tear for burglars killed when trying to burgle a house, you shouldn't shed a tear for a rapist shot trying to rape, should you? Except it doesn't work that way.
I think it has to do a lot with the male point of view being so different and also dominant: what's so bad about "a little sex", just a little bit of fun, actually - and after all, it can't hurt when those teasers are taught a lesson, right? (And if that one HASN'T to do with domination and the question WHO has the power, all discussion is pointless anyway.)
In short - serious scientists who come up with how rape is about sex after all should go to school again.
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 09:25 AM |
|
Edited by Gryphs at 09:26, 10 Jun 2016.
|
JollyJoker said:
Same right, no? Basically, if you are not shedding a tear for burglars killed when trying to burgle a house, you shouldn't shed a tear for a rapist shot trying to rape, should you? Except it doesn't work that way.
No, I am pretty sure you are fully within your rights if you kill a rapist here in the US anyway. Where did you gather that you cannot?
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 09:31 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
So what about an intruder invading your body? Same right, no? Basically, if you are not shedding a tear for burglars killed when trying to burgle a house, you shouldn't shed a tear for a rapist shot trying to rape, should you? Except it doesn't work that way.
I don't think that people have much of a problem with shooting the stereotypical rapist, i.e. someone who forces himself upon a woman in a dark alleyway. The problem is that a lot of rapes don't look stereotypical: someone got too drunk and taken advantage of (but there's the suspicion that it was actually consensual and the rape accusation is the effect of regret), someone said "no" several times to their significant other who nevertheless persisted and the victim didn't put up any resistance, and so on. In general, cases where rape is hard to prove because it occurred in a context in which consensual sex might occur as well, and little or no violence was involved.
So the analogy to theft would not be a burglar who breaks into your house, but a friend who borrows something expensive from you and decides to never return it. They've definitely done something wrong, but people wouldn't support shooting them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 11:18 AM |
|
|
|
I'd even say the analogy would be someone entered your house, you go to the police about it and the police questions if you actually did welcome them in.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 12:11 PM |
|
|
That's what I mean with same rights; if you are a girl reporting you just shot a guy trying to rape you - well. Suspicious death. How come? Girl says, "I like to be out in a sexy outfit" (which is the same thing as saying, I like to live in a nice big house that looks great), "knowing that there are all kinds of jerks around who may consider that an open invitation, that's why I'm always carrying in that situation: a girl has to protect herself" (which is the same thing as the house-owner saying, knowing there are jerks who want to reap where they didn't sow, so I have a couple of guns at home in case there's a burglary).
See, it's a question of being prepared. Some people here say, acting in a tempting way is calling for it, but "calling for it" if you are not doing something illegal means ACTUALLY, that you may as well take precautions: you may arm yourself, and if someone tries to threaten or violate you, you may simply pull your gun and defend yourself.
However, it didn't take a lot of posts for one to point out that a lot of rape (attempts) don't look worth kililing for. I think. mvass, that's very superficial, because a burglary isn't worth a kill either. THAT, however, is a male domination question, a question of power: I will rather kill you, before I allow you to [f-word) me and rape my home (and I will OF COURSE kill every scumbag who raped MY wife or MY daughter - and every red-blooded man will understand that).
In short - it's a completely different psychology. We live in a world dominated by the MALE perspective and because of that, we invented the slippery slope when it comes to rape. Because men are used to think that women should have to put up with a certain level of harrassment - that's only natural, isn't it?
Which is the problem, and which is the problem OP points to, bottom line.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 12:38 PM |
|
|
But like in this case the girl was passed out and the guy took advantage of that. Did he do it to show her that he dominates? I don't think so. Did he want to show her he is the boss? I don't think so. He wanted to use her for sex. Probably thought no one would find out.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 01:37 PM |
|
|
You could see it differently.
In the case for burglaries, a sizable part of the burglars really enjoy the aspect of [f-word] with the integrity of another guy's or person's home - you know, penetrating.
If you think about it - raping a passed-out CANNOT be about sex first and foremost, because you could just use one of those artificial vaginas and it would probably feel better. The kick will be doing something very forbidden and very intimate with another person (virtually [f-word] with her life), getting away with it (hopefully) and have her MARKED as his - a trophy: I HAD YOU!
If more men would be raped, killing rapists would be standard procedure - like as in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, for example.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 03:47 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
As for the bully comparison, it's quite the same - in both cases you have someone physically stronger who's able to forcefully overcome somebody physically weaker just because something as primal and unsophisticated as raw strength is on his side. And in both cases the law is on the victim's side but only after something bad has already happened, it can't prevent it from happening in any way apart from instilling fear from the consequences - which just doesn't work with some people. If you don't want it to happen, you don't blindly act as if the society, the universe, God or whatever will shield you from injustice and won't allow your righteous persona to suffer any abuse but you use your brain and try to restrain your own behaviour where it can put you in danger.
No, it's not. Because what is considered as plain stupidity and recklessness does not exactly have a common criteria about it and the more conservative people are about this, the more they have a tendency to consider some behavior or dress code as dangerously suggestive. I can link you a dozen Muslims who think wearing a bikini in the summer qualifies. "Of course, they don't approve of rape but those women could have walked around in their underwear as well and there's something called common sense!" The difference between you and the person who takes a harsher stand about a rape where the woman is considered reckless is not that he is suggesting recklessness is wonderful, it is that he doesn't think it is a legitimate explanation, just like you don't think the Muslim's is. Now, if we had one, singled out, extreme example about a woman who used heroin, went to a playboy's house, got undressed and went to bed with him, and changed her mind right in the middle of intercourse and if this was just one of those "too hard to believe" incidents, I may have agreed with your "in theory she has the right to do so but come oonn, get real" stance. However, at the core of this, we are actually talking about a cultural pattern, harsher in some countries, softer on others but if you skip away the quantitative difference, it is a pattern of presenting a traditional "virtuous woman" model and suggesting that model as the "reasonable" answer to not getting raped. And I see this as an obnoxious double standard.
JollyJoker said:
Scientists who suddenly take offense on the "mantra" that rape isn't about sex, but about power" should be fined due to being banal; the miss the most elementary thing about rape and that's the violating. It's simply a question of perspective.
I've done some further reading on this and the contradiction doesn't seem as strong as Corribus implies. Evolutionary psychologists, as the name clearly suggests, are more focused on how rape has come to exist genetically, why did genes that lead to rapist behavior survived in the gene pool, etc. And if you think of earlier human societies, with an order which resemble other primate groups, where there are alpha-males selected by females to mate and outcast loser males who are waiting around the corner, desperate to reproduce, rape is seen as a way of by-passing the alpha-male and passing your genes. It is not a bad explanation to elaborate on the origins of rapist behavior but a)it's also about power as much as sex and b) it doesn't cover much of the modern phenomenon we are talking about.
Say, there is an evolutionary psychologist researching why does sociopathy exist and the historical, evolutionary advantages of killing without remorse. And then there is a sociologist researching how capitalist economics sometimes rewards sociopathy and trying to explain how come there are so many sociopaths in top positions in modern society. I would say that they are working on different aspects of a behavior. Not exactly contradicting on the subject. There is, of course biological pressures that enable rape to exist and trigger a mechanism which has a lot to do with our sexuality and testosterone. But it doesn't explain something like a group of soldiers raiding a village and then putting their rifles inside the women's vagina, does it? One can object by saying this is an extraordinary example within a context of war. However, even in more "traditional" rape cases of today, I think we have two things important to remember. a)Unlike earlier primates, it is very easy for almost any rapist to release his sexual tension elsewhere, if we are to assume sexual hunger is the main reason behind rape, we are to assume that it hits so suddenly and so massive that the rapist loses all ability to make a choice. It would be like he was hypnotised, going green hulk on the woman. But this is not the case, cultural norms and legal punishment have significant effect on rape rates. Rapists are mostly self-aware, in some cases they are planning the rape, in some cases they imprison and rape someone for years. b) Our sexuality is not just sexuality, it is interlinked with a lot of our more abstract desires and just like sometimes something that doesn't seem to be about sexuality on the surface can turn out to be about it in a Freudian sense, something that seems to originate from our sexuality can also be no longer just about it or even mainly about it. It's not like there are completely isolated departments in our psyche about sexuality, dominance and satisfaction.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 04:36 PM |
|
|
@ artu
I'm not contradicting YOU, since you are just following those sociologists. I contradict them, and there's one simple reason: no rape among animals, even though the fight for the right to multiply is fought THERE. Afaik, rape happens with geese and ducks, laying animals in order to fertilize the eggs, and that's it.
On the other hand, it seems animals ARE capable of bartering sex for stuff, like, nesting materials and so on.
So if rape was something primal, an overwhelming urge to pass forth one's genes, you'd think it would be common practise with animals.
Not the case, though.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 04:55 PM |
|
|
Well, when it comes to animals, I imagine it would be a challenge to define "consent" itself, since selecting your sex partner is mostly a much more impulsive process. It is still a very controversial subject at which stage of consciousness "free will" came into existence, even a very controversial subject that if it exists in the idealistic, absolute sense, at all.
When you watch cats mating, you see that the female hisses hysterically at first, showing her teeth to the male etc and then he persists and gets on top and they mate. Is that rape? From an evolutionary perspective, you can see it as sexual selection, males who are not strong enough to persist and get on top lose their chance to pass their genes. The whole thing is completely different when civilization is not there.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 08:09 PM |
|
|
artu said:
No, it's not. Because what is considered as plain stupidity and recklessness does not exactly have a common criteria about it and the more conservative people are about this, the more they have a tendency to consider some behavior or dress code as dangerously suggestive. I can link you a dozen Muslims who think wearing a bikini in the summer qualifies. "Of course, they don't approve of rape but those women could have walked around in their underwear as well and there's something called common sense!" The difference between you and the person who takes a harsher stand about a rape where the woman is considered reckless is not that he is suggesting recklessness is wonderful, it is that he doesn't think it is a legitimate explanation, just like you don't think the Muslim's is. Now, if we had one, singled out, extreme example about a woman who used heroin, went to a playboy's house, got undressed and went to bed with him, and changed her mind right in the middle of intercourse and if this was just one of those "too hard to believe" incidents, I may have agreed with your "in theory she has the right to do so but come oonn, get real" stance. However, at the core of this, we are actually talking about a cultural pattern, harsher in some countries, softer on others but if you skip away the quantitative difference, it is a pattern of presenting a traditional "virtuous woman" model and suggesting that model as the "reasonable" answer to not getting raped. And I see this as an obnoxious double standard.
Then you just don't follow me. Women can play virtuous or naughty all they want, it's their rightful choice. But if they have something in their heads they will also take into account that there is a line beyond which they are inviting more attention that they can probably handle. If they can't see that line, i.e. go to a party with all sorts of strangers, deliberately dressed in a "I wanna sex tonight" fashion, get dead drunk and end up being raped by some equally wasted "macho", that's both bad and expected. What I object against the unconditional reliance on the rights mantra to justify such a behaviour as obviously the results from it are less than satisfactory. I don't expect that if you have a daughter, you will encourage her to do whatever she wants just for the sake of showing how emancipated she is - and especially if this gets her into trouble.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
